By J.N. Kish - Kish Collections
Have you ever wondered about China- about their intentions and their motives? Have your ever had a "friend" who was always building something for himself, but would never come around when you needed help? If the Chinese are such great allies of the United States- Why aren't they helping us? Why aren't they fighting "The War on Terror"?
They have so many men. Why can't some of them help us in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Sun Tzu- "You can fight a war for a long time or you can make your nation strong. You can't do both .... Thus those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle .... They conquer by strategy."
Sun Tzu was a Chinese philosopher and military commander c.544–496. B.C.
Chinese leaders understand and live by Sun Tzu's lessons. They have done so for thousands of years. Many of our U.S. leaders are aware of Sun Tzu's teachings but few seem to take them seriously.
Sun Tzu said- "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."
While American leaders weaken our nation in Afghanistan- the nation of China remains focused on growing strong.
Communists do not believe in freedom. They believe in strength, control and survival of leadership. They are always thinking- strategy. They are always seeking new and creative ways to dominate and conquer- to win and survive.
Communism believes in command and control. America believes in freedom. Communist China is America's largest threat. The cold war (supposedly) ended when the Berlin wall fell. However, communists never stopped fighting. They simply adapted their strategy to fit the new circumstances. Sun Tzu preaches adaptation, secrecy and distraction. The Communists have not given up. In secret, they have launched a new type of war.
Sun Tzu- "Doing the right things at the start of war is like approaching a woman. Your enemy's men must open the door. After that, you should act like a streaking rabbit. The enemy will be unable to catch you."
Look at everything that China is doing in relation to the United States. They have been fighting a strategic war against us for years - and doing very well indeed. Everything that has made America strong is being stripped away- Manufacturing, Technology, Resources, Land, Wealth and Freedom. All the while, the American people are led to believe that it is all an accident- that it's all our fault- that China is a great partner in the global economy- that China means well- that China should be trusted, implicitly- that it's OK to rely on China for our clothing, food and cheap labor. After all- it doesn't really matter when China spies on us and steals our technology. And when they provide weapons and intelligence to our publicized adversaries (i.e. North Korea and Iran), well, that's just business in the new global economy. Every country deserves to make a buck. You know- what we really need is a low-cost supplier of small arms. Why don't we open up the bids to China- the Iraqi government is doing it.
Add it all up. Read the Art of War. It is all right there. Right in front of us.
China has successfully baited our businesses with the lure of gain. Our leaders have opened the door with free trade agreements, treaties and loans. One day China will act - like a streaking rabbit.
This isn't a partnership. This is a strategic war. Unless American leaders wake up to this reality, over time- this strategy will deliver victory to China. In a global economy, Chinese Communists will rule the world.
Could it be that Terrorism is a tool of the Communists?
If you follow the Art of War- The idea does make sense. If the Chinese Communists were to secretly support Islamic Extremism in the Western World, it would be consistant with Sun Tzu's teachings-
"Get assistance from the outside. Influence events. Then planning can find opportunities and give you control ... Manage to avoid battle until your organization can count on certain victory ... You can kill the enemy and frustrate him as well ... Take the enemy's strength away from him by stealing away his money ... You can draw their men out of their cities ... with small attacks. The entire army becomes confused and distrusting ... You cannot win unless the enemy enables your victory ... Outmaneuver the enemy before the first battle and then fight to win ... Chaos gives birth to control ... You must control chaos ... You must force the enemy to move to your advantage ... The enemy must follow you ... Ghostly! Ghostly! Arrive without a sound. You must use all your skill to control the enemy's decisions ... Do not try to win by fighting him directly ... Force the enemy to prepare his defense in many places. You want the enemy to defend many places. Then you can choose where to meet the enemy. His forces will be weak there. The enemy may have many men. You can still control him without a fight ... Your war can take any shape ... Make war without a standard approach ... If you follow an enemy's shifts and changes, you can always find a way to win ... Using deception, you can upset the enemy and change the situation ... You must be creative in your planning ... You can keep your potential enemy's army busy by giving it work to do ... Do not trust that the enemy isn't coming. Trust your readiness to meet him."
"As Chinese automakers eye bargains around the world, some think they could make a play for GM once it goes public... Such purchases would give the Chinese access to needed technology, as well as auto plants around the globe to serve various markets."
"The Chinese have a lot of our money and they're looking to invest it," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.
"Assuming there's no government restrictions on something like that, anything is possible," said Bob Schulz, the top automotive credit analyst at Standard & Poor's.
Click THIS LINK to view a KC article from December 2008 entitled China - "A swiftly rising threat."
Bribe- Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct. Bribery- The offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. Bribes can take the form of gifts or payments of money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the person accepting can be charged with bribery.
Oh- and don't forget about the Senators who bribed Mary Landrieu- According to Louisiana Law (RS 14:119 — Bribery of voters): "Whoever commits the crime of bribery of voters shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both, for the first offense."
But this event didn't occur in Louisiana. In this case, we need to look at Federal Bribery Law. 18 USC Chapter 11
“We’re creating a new energy paradigm by basically [finding] a way to exploit a loophole in the laws of physics,”
“It’s obvious to everybody. The only people that it’s not obvious to are the engineers and PhDs, and [it’s because] their education is an impediment to them understanding it,”
But wait- Before anyone gets too excited and decides to invest the family fortune, read this-
"I'm sure you've heard the expression, ‘If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.’ Well, in the investment world, I say, If something sounds too good to be true, it definitely is." [1997 Washington Times 3 June B7]
The following was posted by Former Marine Infantry NCO "EvilMonk" on DefensiveCarry.com. A link to the thread is HERE. This post is related to the KC article and discussion linked HERE.
I will not pontificate on the myriad motivational aspects of this issue, that has already been done elsewhere, and in great quantities.
What I will say is that our troops are at their most vulnerable when on a base in the states. There are many rules, laws, and guidelines in place while on a base, and they are all derived from experience. Seen a stupid Military rule? It’s there because someone at one time did exactly what is says not to do. In the best of times, a Member of the Armed Services is treated no better than a well-behaved kindergartener, ask any Veteran. Ownership of firearms and their presence on base are no exception.
Allow me to brief you on the current (as of two years ago) situation regarding personal firearms on base.
1. In order to just purchase a firearm, even off the base in the Camp LeJuene area, you needed your Commands’ express written permission. This included your immediate Commander as well as your Battalion Commander’s signature.
2. The weapon must then be entered into your unit’s armory, where it could be accessed at any time by the armorers. If they decide that they like your new Wilson Combat Custom, they could take it out for a spin. There is nothing you could do, and you would likely never know. Several private firearms developed mysterious “wear-and-tear” issues in my unit…
3. Any weapon on base that was not declared and in transit to or from the armory was highly illegal. CCDW (or equivalent) did not make exception to this factor, and served no on-base purpose except to flag your vehicle at the gate for “Random Inspection”.
4. To remove your weapon from the armory, someone had to be there, and this only happened when there was some reason for your unit to have their armorer actually in the armory (scheduled weapon’s maintenance, range qualification in progress, etc.). This meant that if you wanted your weapon for a private day at the range, you had to schedule it for a day that they would be unlikely to want to help you. Just to open the armory doors alone takes paper-work, and they don’t like having to do it just so you could get your firearm for a few hours.
Are you beginning to see why no one was armed on Fort Hood?
While the suggestion of allowing this nation’s military to be armed even when they are not in a hostile environment is certainly one that makes sense, I believe that another step could be taken that perhaps would make even more sense, and be easy to implement as well.
While in the military, you stand something that is called “Duty”. Everyone does Duty. In the Marines, this meant that once a month (more or less) you put on your uniform, the Duty Belt, carry the Duty Log Book, and stay awake for 24 hours while watching everyone else go about the daily business of training, preparing, and gearing up.
The Duty is an extension of the Command. An order from them is (supposed to be) an order from the Gods of Brass that rule all in the Military. They are prime candidates for armed presence and active deterrent.
If situations like this can’t be stopped from the top, perhaps a more localized solution should be investigated. Arm the Duties and give them supplemental training for the defense of their fellow Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen.
They are all in the military, not the Peace Corps, and they should all have the general concept down that they may in fact have to some day take a life to defend whatever it is that they are assigned to protect. It shouldn’t matter what MOS (Military Occupational Specialty or “job”) they have in the Military, they are all “Riflemen First” at least according to Marine Doctrine. This should be a rather easy and logical step towards the increased protection of our Armed Forces while they are in the States, on base, and at their most vulnerable.
Incidentally, it wouldn’t hurt to allow some trust for individual members that have a recognized CCDW to carry their personal firearms. After all, the weapons I have now are in much better shape and a vast improvement in reliability from anything the Government ever issued me! I also hear tell of a time when a Trooper could take his own weapon (within reason) to combat as a back-up, but that may be an unfounded rumor, and is a topic for a different thread…
The Military may never ease up on the Troops and their possession of private firearms, but they should seriously consider allowing the Duty Officers and Enlisted to carry issued firearms to help with the defense of their brethren. Outsourced security, inconsistent procedural policies, and unobserved fences and boundaries are epidemic in the Modern Military. They deserve the right to defend themselves, and they have an absolutely unassailable host of reasons for considering themselves to be targeted for hostile actions.
The Supreme Irony of Fort Hood is that this happened on an Army Base, by an Army Officer, and it was ultimately resolved by a “Townie” SWAT Police Officer whose unit was called in to “help the Soldiers”.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot indeed…
That which does not kill us leaves us broken and bleeding...
...What would change these types of situation would be to REQUIRE those personnel who are standing watch be armed and trained with small arms and to have a "strategic arms locker" in various places around the command. The purpose of this locker is to provide O's the ability to arm their division personnel in the event of an escalating takeover/raid situation. It also decentralizes the arms/ammo supply dump a bit.
The additional armed personnel would enhance the ability to respond to deadly force incidents because they are right there at the time it happens rather than relying solely upon the ability of the few hire LEO to get to the scene."
I am stunned and angered by the effectiveness of the terrorist act at Fort Hood. I have been left to wonder- Why were our trained soldiers defenseless against this handgun attack?
According to the Fort Hood Sentinel- "the Texas Concealed handgun Law does not apply on Fort Hood. Therefore, concealed handguns are prohibited on Fort Hood. During firearms transportation the firearms will be unloaded and secured in the trunk, or out of immediate reach of all occupants."
In addition, according to Fort Hood policy- "privately owned weapons and ammunition will not be stored or allowed in the barracks at any time"... "Military personnel who fail to comply... are subject to judicial or non-judicial disciplinary action".
Yet, obviously, military personnel who do comply... are subject to terrorist action and death. Which is worse?
Note: I have copied and archived the referenced FortHoodSentinel article and Ford Hood policy because controversial web links (especially factual ones) have a tendency to disappear. The referenced article as of 11/7/09 can be downloaded HERE and the referenced policy can be downloaded HERE.
As a direct result of these policies, the capable defenders stationed at Fort Hood were forced-defenseless against the enemy unleashed within the gates. I submit that the patrons of any coffee shop in Texas (where concealed carry is legal) would be more effective at defending themselves against this form of attack. Now, after this tragedy, we are all left to wonder- will policy makers realize and correct their errors? What is it going to take to convince policy makers that Concealed Carry Saves Lives?
Just who are these policy makers? Do they have names? Do they have faces?
They seem to be as effective as the enemy. At Fort Hood- their work enabled the enemy. How can these policy makers be identified and stopped?
The following history questions need to be researched and answered-
1) When were privately owned guns banned from Fort Hood? Why? Who banned them?
I have heard from ex-military that privately owned guns were banned in the late 70's or early 80's. Is this true?
2) Where were the armed guards? I have heard that armed guards were common at Fort Hood in the 50's. Is this true? When were the number of armed guards reduced? Why? Who reduced them? When was Fort Hood security outsourced? Why? Who outsourced it?
If we can understand and dissect the evolution of these policies, then we can be better prepared for the fight to reverse them. I believe that the internal operations of Fort Hood were more secure in 1949 than they are in 2009. Don't agree? Prove me wrong. We will all learn something through the exercise.
Related links- (Caution - You will have to traverse liberal thought patterns in order to get at the facts in some of the following articles. I know, it's a painful exercise - but well worth it - if these policies are changed to once again allow individuals to protect themselves- lives will be saved.)
Here is a comment worth repeating- Tracy (a commenter to the article HERE) writes:
"I have a standing order: If I am killed in a situation where I have been prevented from lawfully carrying a firearm for self-defense and where shooting in self defense would likely have saved my life, my life insurance and other financial assets will be used to sue the authority that prevented me from carrying a gun."
This comment gets to the point of how to attack flawed "anti-gun" policies. When policies inflict or enable harm- the policy makers must be held liable.
These cowardly policy makers have done too much to harm our country already. They must be stopped and pushed back. We citizens must hold them accountable for their bad ideas and social experiments. These are real lives we are dealing with. We are not guinea pigs. We have our common sense. We know what is right and what is wrong.
The right to defend. The duty to defend. The right to attack. The duty to attack.
The families and individuals harmed in the Fort Hood attack should immediately form a class action suit against the policies and policy makers who enabled the harm. The men and women killed and injured in this attack had a right to defend themselves. Their means to defend were stolen by policy. Their rights were stolen. Their lives were stolen.
The regulations against guns on this base can be likened to regulations against seat belts on the highway. You know we are driving (we are at war) and you know there are chances we can crash (we can be attacked). Now, we order you- do not wear your seat belts (do not wear your guns). When a car swerves into your lane, just brace yourselves for impact.
You see- bad policy can enable the enemy. Fort Hood is proof. If you can't trust your soldiers to carry guns- who can you trust?
If climate change environmentalism has the same weight in law as religion and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” - isn’t cap and trade legislation a logical violation of the First Amendment?
If you happen to find errors or omissions in my work, I can assure you, they are NOT intentional. My nature is that of a worker- not a pedant. Every day I strive for three things- to SERVE, to DO and to IMPROVE. Please contact me with any comments, corrections or suggestions. Thank you. - J.N. Kish